   

Search the MagLife blog …

Navigation

INSPIRED: Rifle Types for

Regular Guys
Gun Builds & How-Tos

Posted on August 21, 2021 • by Frank Woods

13 Comments

BLUF: There exists a gap between military and

commercial vernacular, and this is the bridge. If the
military is going to make up names for rifle types
and the commercial market is going to use them to
name their products… fine. But there has to be (or
should be) a standard, on the commercial side, and
among private end-users. There must be order.
That order might best be attained by using
nomenclature inspired by intended use and extant
systems.

Below you’ll find eight primary types of rifles…plus

one more.

Rifle Typing: What’s in a Name?

INSPIRED Background
Rifle Typing
AR-15 Variants
General Purpose Rifle (GPR)
Special Purpose Rifle (SPR)
Close Quarters Rifle (CQR)
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW)
AR-308 Variants
Battle Rifle (BR)
Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR)
Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS)
Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System
(CSASS)
Unusually Configured Rifle (UCR)

INSPIRED: Rifle Types

The C
C⁴⁴ (Configuration Classification
Categories & Criteria) System, for Regular
Guys.

We have a terminology/lingo problem in the 2A

market and surrounding community. There are
multiple dialects of the same language spoken,
with much lost in translation. Certain phrases
mean different things to different people. Some of
it is institutionalized. Lots of it is commercialized.

All of it is confusing.

The problem I’m talking about is how certain rifle

configurations (of the AR platform in particular) are
colloquially referred to.

Military naming conventions can be inconsistent

themselves, though at least those rifles have an M
or Mk/”Mark” number used to specifically set each
one apart. This inconsistency carries over into the
commercial side of the firearms industry and is
compounded by myriad companies cherry-picking
product names based on “.mil” naming
conventions.

Picture credit to @maneuver_____up on Instagram.

This is a marketing tactic; they are implying their

product is like or comparable to what the military is
using in a similar or identical capacity. But they do
this with complete disregard for the doctrine(s)
that spawned the nomenclature.

And this is done inconsistently as well — there is no

“civilian” standard for the terminology applied. This
results in commercial end-users, i.e. the “regular
guys” in the market, reflecting this inconsistency
throwing names and labels around to describe or
label their weapon configuration(s). These regular
guys, who usually don’t know any better, are
typically civilian members of the 2A community
(but may also be armed professionals). The result
is chaos.

The intended purpose of this article is to bring

order to that chaos. It will seek to clarify the
terminology used for various types of guns by
narrowing it down to configuration categories with
unique criteria. The goal is to assist the regular guy
in navigating and understanding the market
options available to them and hopefully optimize
their rifle configuration toward its intended use.

Such a configuration will be, in most cases, based

upon what that person sees utilized by
professionals that carry rifles for a living, including
those specialized for similar purposes or
capabilities the regular guy may desire. Some gun
buyers might copy such weapons as closely as
possible, but that won’t always be the case.
Usually, the responsible citizen prospective gun
buyer is in a position to afford better commercial
options than what most professional organizations
(that don’t allow self-supplied weapons) will
provide or authorize for use.

So
So, be forewarned. If you’re a pedantic “cloner”
that can recite the build spec sheet of a rifle and
any variations of it used by the US military, this
isn’t for you — though you guys do generate some
baller gun porn! Your historical knowledge is as
useful as it is interesting and therefore respected,
but the naming convention outlined below will not
jibe with rigidly dogmatic adherence to military-
based nomenclature.

Leave all that at the door before you proceed, or

just leave. There’s your first warning.

I will repeat this several times throughout the

article to anchor purpose and practicality. The
primary intention here is to streamline the
communication process to a more simplified
format.

Secondarily it is to normalize such standardized

categories via circulation and dissemination and
then hopefully a subsequent awareness within our
community.

The equation is simple:

Configuration weighed against intended use, then

named after the nearest applicable military
example(s), if available.

Back to top

Rifle Typing In Action

This is how it works.

• Look at the configuration.

• Evaluate which job or task the configuration is

optimized for.

• Name or describe the category of all likewise

configurations after the most colloquially
recognized examples of .mil rifles configured and
used for the same purposes (where such
terminology exists) or

• Describe it based on its characteristics

comparable to the nearest adjacent .mil
configuration.

Example: “Battle Rifle”, “DMR” (Designated

Marksman Rifle), “SPR” (Special Purpose Rifle), and
others are all existing terminology. “GPR” is a
truncation of the phrase “general-purpose rifle”,
commonly used to describe rifles of such use in
layman’s terms.

Why? Because the mil stuff is what everyone in the

commercial market sees. They say, “I want
something like that,” and the industry knows this.

So then the industry says, “Let’s name our stuff

after that so people buy it when they want to get
something like that.”

This is why the slides you see in each category

section use as many .mil examples as possible;
they’re what the industry/commercial market and
customers thereof copy or are “inspired” by by.
Hence the prefix in the article title.

I’ve developed this naming convention based on

my personal experience. This is how I’ve been
referring to and navigating configurations and the
inconsistent labels applied to them for years.
However, before codifying it and presenting it here
I sought input and review from a wide array of
knowledgeable individuals.

Allow me to present a DISCLAIMER: This is not a

guide to translating military doctrine naming
conventions. But since the industry uses doctrine
terminology to market their products, doctrine
terminology will be used to describe the industry’s
products by evaluating them as a whole/by the
sum of their parts. This is not how the military does
things; this is how I navigate the way the military,
and the industry that follows it, does things.

That said, there will be people that don’t like this.

They will outright reject the idea. My answer to
them is tough shit. If you are part of that crowd,
stop reading now and avoid unnecessary angst
and drama.

The inherent inconsistency of the military and

related doctrinal terminology creep into the
commercial industry is what necessitates
my system. The advantages that a streamlined and
simplified colloquial system will provide to the
commercial market are many and manifest.

If you are extremely orthodox in your approach to

this subject and your ass is so chapped that you’re
outraged or losing your mind, this is your stop. If
you continue, you have no excuse to be upset. Fair
warning has been issued, three times.

But if you’re that regular guy, and you’ve ever sat

there wondering what the difference between an
SPR and a DMR is, come along, this was written for
you.

Back to top

AR-15 Variants
We begin with the standard frame AR-15 variants
in 5.56 & .300BLK, starting with the most
commonly carried configuration in private and
professional hands: the General Purpose Rifle.

CAPABILITYOVERLAP SPR
EFFECTIVERANGE

GPR
SPR
GPR COR
COR
PDW
PDW

+MANEUVERABILITY

GPR SPR

D14.5-16D125-13.9D14.5.161S]D125-13.9TS|OMAX ©STANDARD OSUPPRESSEDOMAX

BLUF

GPR: The jack of all trades, does every job

acceptably enough to be the mainstay
configuration. Balances maneuverability and
effective range.
CQR: Specialized for close to mid-range
engagements, sacrifices effective range for
maneuverability and/or signature reduction.
PDW: Sacrifices effective range for
concealment, signature reduction, and lethal
maneuverability in extreme close-quarters
engagements.
SPR: Accurized for distanced precision fire at
max effective range, in exchange for
maneuverability. Retains
commonality/standardization at the squad
level.

GPR: General Purpose Rifle

The standard configuration category. The jack of all
trades. The meta. Not unlike the M4A1, nearly
everyone has one of these (or they ought to), and
they can all do a little bit of everything.

They can reach out past 500 pretty well, but the
longer dedicated configurations will do that better.
They can handle close range and interior work just
fine but aren’t as maneuverable as the shorter
dedicated configurations. This is particularly true
once you add a suppressor, which we’ll touch on
later.

For the guy that’s on the fence about dedicated

configurations and is more comfortable with
something that can handle all tasks within a
reasonable performance margin, the GPR is where
it’s at.

Carbine classes are a typical place to find a wide

variety of representations of the GPR (General
Purpose Rifle). This testifies to its commonality and
versatility, as seen here in the class photo from a
Presscheck Consulting No-Fail Rifle class attended by
the author.

A GPR is a weapon in which you’ve sacrificed a

balance of some effective range for some
maneuverability, and some maneuverability for
effective range. The GPR is also suitable for
someone who wants a training rifle they can cross
state lines with, This allows travel across the
country to training courses without having to
worry about National Firearms Act (NFA) legality
concerns.

It covers all the bases good enough to not really

leave you wanting, especially if a pinned muzzle
device doesn’t strike your fancy.

Q: “Why is called General Purpose Rifle instead of

General Purpose Carbine, since the barrel lengths
are all in carbine territory?”

A: Honestly, it’s interchangeable, but on paper, it’s

still considered a rifle in black and white, anchored
in the cartridge it’s chambered for, whereas
carbine can refer to something in rifle or pistol
caliber.

At the end of the day, the Pistol Caliber Carbines

(PCCs) are just giant handguns with no greater
terminal ballistic performance in their more
common short barrel form. They offer no
appreciable gains in terminal performance with
longer barrels but do suffer the size and weight
penalty of a rifle caliber weapon.

The combination of those two things in a weapon

with pistol terminal performance is of arguable
merit at best. These aren’t submachine guns
(SMGs) with a select-fire option we’re talking
about. I contend that PDWs do the PCCs job, but
better, as far as go-to and backpack guns go.

More on this later.

Q: ““Why not call it Recce Rifle?”

A: Because first and foremost, that term is mostly

just dumb wannabe cool guy lingo. Secondly, the
definition of “Recce Rifle” changes based on who
you ask. If you ask Navy SOF guys, it’s an ~M4
sized rifle with glass as opposed to their Mk. 18s
and HK416 SBRs. If you ask Army SOF guys, it’s
basically a Battle Rifle in carbine form with glass
on top (aka DMR, more on this below).

This actually serves as a case in point. The

configuration was never consistent, but
the purpose was.

Recce Rifles in .mil use over the years (T2B: NSW,

Delta, HK416, SR25). At the time, they filled a
capability gap. Today, when compared to the
present-day GPR examples in the slides above and
below, we see that this configuration equivalent is no
longer specialized, having become the modern
standard, both in service and commercially.

You have to understand that “Recce Rifle” came

about in a time before today’s technology existed.
The “it can do everything good enough” version of
the AR-15 or M4 with an LPVO that bottomed out
at 1x and comparable to a red dot, and a free-
floated rail that increased precision capability just
wasn’t a thing at the time. So the “Recce Rifle”
filled a capability gap between the short barrel
stuff and the longer barrel accurized stuff. It could
still push out accurately and precisely enough for
the AO the guys using them found themselves in,
but it was shorter for greater maneuverability.

But the most important reason “Recce Rifle” is no

more is because…damn near everyone now has
what we would once have called a Recce Rifle in
the common form of the GPR. This is the
increasingly ubiquitous carbine equipped with an
LPVO in the 1-6/8x/10x range, but not used for
actual recce purposes; more so because carbines
equipped with LPVOs are currently the
technological standard.

So if everyone is running around with a “Recce

Rifle”, then nobody has a Recce Rifle. They just
have a general-purpose rifle capable of a wide
variety of tasks. Therefore the most important
reason we didn’t go with the term Recce Rifle is
that “recce” isn’t reflected in a configuration
anymore. It’s just one task among several that one
can perform with a GPR if needed.

A few examples of commercially available GPR

assemblies, including the author’s equipped with the
Surefire SOCOM556-MINI2 suppressor.

With a wide variety of optics and barrel lengths to

make combinations of, weighed against the
capability and performance of those combinations,
the GPR covers the widest range of applications
effectively and reliably enough to be the “do-all”
configuration of the AR-15 platform. Thus, General
Purpose. It is the “squad standard.”

20″ barreled M16-like configurations almost made

it to this category, but we’ll cover why they weren’t
later on.

Back to top

SPR: Special Purpose Rifle

This configuration of the AR-15 platform is
optimized for long-range precision to the extent of
the maximum effective range of the 5.56x45mm
round.

This applies especially to the heavier BTHP & TMK

varieties, as testified by the sum of its
components:

a rifle length barrel to stretch the muzzle

velocity and flatten the trajectory as the bullet
flies farther out,
a free-floated rail to maximize the precision
capability at distance, and
a magnified optic to facilitate PID at further
distances.

Everything about this configuration category says

“My rifle’s job is to be more capable of precision
fire and at further distances than the rest of the
squad, while still being standardized and able to
fall in with them as needed.”

The guy that shows up with an SPR automatically

becomes your Squad Designated Marksman.
Hopefully, he’s good at that role, or at the very
least switches rifles with someone in your gang
who is.

Let me take a sec to talk about this “squad” I’ve

referred to a few times now. Let’s be real here,
most of the intended audience for this article has
taken “SHTF” into consideration when it came to
their armament, their training, and those of their
friends. Don’t be embarrassed, we’ve all done it
and it’s okay. Encouraged, even. This country was
built on the backs of local riflemen.

The author firing his SPR at a Kyle Defoor Scoped

Rifle class, October 2018, with which he was the
fastest of three top shooters in the class. He
attributes this to the rifle’s configuration and the
choice of TMK ammo making his job as a marksman
easier.

I don’t care what flavor of SHTF you subscribe to

preparing for, or if some smug douchebag out
there wants to call you a LARPer for it, that’s
beside the point. The country’s been on edge for a
minute now anyway so nobody could really blame
you for thinking about it.

You’re not alone, this is why the ammo and

hardware coming from the industry has been
extremely hard to find over the last year+.

So when I say squad, I mean your friends who’re

the kind that would ask just, Who’s car we gonna
take? You could merely be fireteam-sized, but for
brevity, we’re using “squad” interchangeably. Let’s
pretend you and your squad are smart and you’re
all using or at least in possession of 5.56 AR
platform rifles because that’s the CONUS King. So
you’re all 4-8 of you using the same style rifle with
the same ammo and the same mags and spare
parts. You’re standardized.

The SPR is therefore a squad-level weapon (retains

parts/mags/ammo/interface interchangeability
with the rest of the squad) with a specialized
purpose: precision, and precision at range
especially, beyond the GPR’s capability. That the
actual Mk. 12 SPR was never utilized as a “squad”
weapon but more at the fireteam level among NSW
personnel using it doesn’t matter; because it
seamlessly integrates with the GPRs the rest of
your squad is carrying.

We will therefore consider it a member of the same

family at the squad level.

It does not however imply or denote a “Sniper” or

“Sniper Rifle.” That’s a different configuration for a
different task, and the Squad Designated
Marksman is still in the stack/moving with and
among the squad.

The foremost recognizable examples of the SPR

category criteria in service, from top to bottom: The
Mk. 12 SPR, the Army SDMR, the USMC SAM-R, and
Travis Haley’s SPR from the Battle of Najaf, 2004.

The name is derived from the aforementioned Mk.

12 Mod 0/Mod 1 SPR, which serves as the basis by
which every likewise rifle configuration in private
hands is informed. You see it in marketing from the
industry where whole rifles and components are
sold under the name, or in a suggestive
“comparable to” sort of way implied between the
configuration and the name (like the KAC SR-15
LPR).

You’ll also see it used colloquially in chatter

amongst the 2A community: when someone says
“my SPR,” they are referring to an accurized AR-15
firing 5.56 optimized for long-range precision.

The keyword there is optimized: there is a

difference between what an Optimized, Dedicated,
or Purpose-Built configuration can do, and what
another configuration is capable of.

Q: “My GPR is capable of doing an SPR’s job. Does

that make it an SPR?”

A: No doubt, but also no. An SPR is optimized for

an SPR’s job, and a GPR is not. It’s really that
simple: between the two, one of them is going to
perform that task better than the other. A 16″
barreled GPR with an LPVO can do an SPR’s job to
an extent, sure, but an actual SPR is more
optimized for the task via its rifle length barrel.
And I know there’s a Mod H SPR out there with a
16″ barrel, but is it really providing you that much
more maneuverability over an 18″ barrel? Not
really. In fact, the only reason most people on the
commercial side stick with 16″ barrels is solely to
avoid stepping into NFA or Pin & Weld territory.

An uninformed glance might lead one to think the

M16-based SDMR is just a standard-issue M16A4 +
ACOG being used by a Designated Marksman. But
it’s not, and though that may very well have been
done overseas during the GWOT these last twenty
years, there’s more to it than that.

The M16-based SDMR might use a 4x ACOG like an

M16A4 and have the same barrel length, but it also
has a specialized free-floating rail and barrel that
further enable it for that task. An M16A4 clone with
glass wouldn’t qualify as an SPR because it’s not
optimized for that task by virtue of the drop in
handguard rail, so.

Moral of the story: if you’re gonna do it, optimize it

for the task.

Outside of the Mk. 12 SPR itself inspiring so many

imitation AR builds in the commercial sector, there
is one other rifle in the SPR category that provided
one of the most well-known examples of the
configuration category. That is the AR-15 used by
Travis Haley in the 2004 Battle of Najaf during his
days as a contractor.

The “Turkey Shoot” video seen far and wide over

the years throughout the community
demonstrated a textbook example of the SPR
configuration’s capability, as Haley was engaging
targets some 700m away from a rooftop in an
overwatch position against enemy combatants.
This display of what the configuration was capable
of inspired many to build a similarly capable SPR
type configuration, myself included.

I suppose another way of remembering or looking

at SPR in this context would be “Squad Precision
Rifle”. That phrase effectively and clearly
communicates the intended use of the
configuration. Despite the concept and task of the
Designated Marksman, I like this better than “SMR”
for “Squad Marksman Rifle” because SMR is too
easily confused with MSR or “Modern Sporting
Rifle”.

The latter is defanged paper tiger nonsense some

genius thought would soften up the firearm
industry’s product offerings in the eyes of its
political opponents. Spoiler alert: it didn’t, and it
won’t, and it’s bullshit.

But I digress.

The author’s SPR as it’s configured today. The SPR

category shares commonality with the GPR in terms
of ammo, magazines, and spare parts, allowing
increased precision capability to seamlessly integrate
at the squad level.

Your optic can be an LPVO, an HPVO, a Combat

Optic, or (more commonly) any of those paired with
an offset MRDS. The MRDS or 1x LPVO settings
allow you to do your close work (especially since
HPVOs aren’t conducive to this). The magnification
allows you to take advantage of the accuracy and
precision that free-floating rail and rifle-length
barrel combinations are capable of.

While sacrificing even more maneuverability

indoors for greater range and precision capability
outdoors, the longer SPR isn’t all that bad: the
boys have been doing MOUT & CQB with M16s for
decades. Not ideal compared to a carbine, but
doable.

Q: “If the SPR is for the Squad Designated

Marksman, why isn’t it called DMR or Designated
Marksman Rifle?”

A: Sometimes it is. But that complicates things. In

simplifying the category classifications, “DMR” is
reserved for large frame ARs with a similar
purpose.

Back to top

CQR: Close Quarters Rifle

The SBR configuration of an AR-15 that’s optimized
for close quarters/indoor work.

Note that I didn’t use SBR for this (or any) category
classification because all that means is “rifle with a
barrel shorter than 16 inches,” and not every such
rifle is optimized for the close-quarters task.

Q: “Why didn’t you just say CQBR like the Mk. 18?”

A: A couple of reasons. For one, the R in CQBR

means Receiver and I didn’t want to introduce a
new meaning for the same acronym.

Two, I liked that was able to get all the AR-15

platform configurations down to three-letter
acronyms. Third, it’s pretty straightforward what
it’s describing: a rifle configuration optimized for
Close Quarters work.

Although louder when unsuppressed, the CQR’s

shorter barrel adds to its maneuverability. While
adding a suppressor brings you back to GPR
maneuverability, you gain signature reduction that
aids both situational awareness and communication.

There are two main reasons this configuration is

optimal for Close Quarters:

Obviously, it’s very maneuverable compared to a

rifle or standard carbine length weapon, due to its
shorter length, which facilitates easier movement
indoors.

That shorter length also facilitates signature

reduction components without requiring you to
exchange maneuverability in close quarters. A
quieter weapon provides for better verbal
communication among team members within a
structure, which is a significant advantage. It also
mitigates how badly the muzzle blast and
concussion rattle your teeth — something that only
gets worse as your barrel gets shorter.

CQR + Suppressor = GPR length. GPR + Suppressor =

SPR/Rifle length. And so on and so forth.

Maneuverability is only half the equation.

When you add a suppressor to a CQR, what you

end up with is a GPR-sized weapon that’s quieter
than a GPR on its own. If you take a GPR and add a
suppressor to it, you end up with a weapon the
size of a rifle-length configuration. This cuts
further into your maneuverability. And if you put a
suppressor on a rifle length configuration, well…
Close Quarters probably isn’t your first job, but
your buddies will thank you for it regardless.

If “unsuppressed CQR indoors” was Plan A because

you thought it was gonna be all fast and furious,
you’re not wrong — but you’re not right either. A
couple of shots in a shoot house with an
unsuppressed CQR (or hell, any rifle for that
matter, but especially a CQR) will tell you
everything you need to know about why that’s a
dumb plan. Even with electronic hearing
protection.

It’s another trade-off. You’re going back to GPR

maneuverability indoors in exchange for signature
reduction within the same size envelope, and
therefore better communication and reduced
hearing damage.

I say “less hearing damage” rather than “no

hearing damage” because 5.56 isn’t hearing safe
even when it is suppressed. You should have
electronic hearing protection anyway, but if you
don’t — yeah the shit don’t sound like GoldenEye
just because you’ve added a can.

Barrel lengths of 10.3″, 10.4″, and 10.5″ were the

go-to for CQRs until very recently when the
industry started trending toward 11.5″ barrels. The
latter barrel provides increased systematic and
ballistic performance benefits in a package where
one extra inch doesn’t kill the maneuverability of
the equation once the added length of a
suppressor is factored in.

All in all, when CQB and Direct Action is your day

job, the CQR is the configuration category you
want.

As Uncle Pat used to say, the mission drives the

gear train.

With the right ammo, barrel, and optic

combination, you’re hot to trot out to 300m but
wouldn’t have a problem out to 500 either.

Author’s go-to CQR, optimized not just for CQB, but

mid-range engagements as well, day or dark.

It also helps that the shorter weapon makes for a

lighter weapon, which is helpful when you start
adding other accouterments to the rifle associated
with CQB, especially more recently. As lights and
lasers and offset MRDS are added for low light or
no-light/night vision use, these things start to add
up in weight.

I know that’s a thing for some people, and while

there’s no reason you can’t or shouldn’t add all of
those things (including suppressors) to GPRs or
SPRs since they’re all complementary to general or
special purpose applications, the weight and
maneuverability remain something to be
considered.

You’re probably wondering about yet shorter barrel

ARs and why they weren’t included in this
category. Well, we’re talking 5.56 as it’s our main
fighting cartridge. It has all the commonality and
industrial support you could ask for. In addition to
CQR configurations not being hearing safe when
suppressed, 10.3″ barrels are the absolute floor for
terminal and ballistic performance.

You could shoot it from shorter barrels, but you’re

losing so much in terms of range and terminal
capability for the weight and size penalty of the
weapon that that barrel length is best left for a
different caliber entirely.

We move onto those next with the…

Back to top

PDW: Personal Defense Weapon

The thing that separates PDWs from the CQR
category is that they’re easier to conceal, and
therefore readily deployable from concealment.

PDW 'LN

(PersonalDefenseWeapon)
Carbine(Barrellengthunder10.3")
RDS,RDS+Magnifier,CombatOptic
.300BLK

KACSR-30(9.5"Barrel)

ADMUIC-15(8.5"Barrel)

QHoneyBadger(7"Barrel)

MaximPDX(5.5"Barrel)

With the PDW style stock or an AR stock on a LAW

Tactical folding adapter + a QD suppressor, that
thing is bag ready.

That’s ultimately the point: easily concealable

firepower that you only expect to use in close
range to extremely close quarters and high
maneuverability therein. This is usually for either
executive or personal defense (duh), and
consequently breaking contact and escaping either
alone or with the person you’re protecting, be they
family member (HD/Home Defense) or client
(EP/Executive Protection).

Another suitable situation is one in which your infil

and exfil need to be inconspicuous and you can’t
appear to be carrying a firearm that you aren’t
going to deploy and utilize until you’re right on top
of your target anyway.

Home Defense, Executive Protection, or Wet Work:

the PDW configuration facilitates the greatest degree
of concealment and maneuverability, and retains
lethality via its specialized ammo, all in the smallest
package, in exchange for effective range.

You could absolutely use them for CQB, and when

suppressed they’ll be even quieter than a CQR in
most cases when using subsonic ammo. You’ll also
get back some of the maneuverability you gave up
suppressing the CQR.

But as always, there’s a trade. If the SPR category

covers the ARs configured with a dedicated long-
range purpose in mind, the PDW is its exact
opposite. It has all the maneuverability, speed, and
concealment capability, but your range capability is
reduced.

You can rule the roost inside, but if that fight goes
outside, ehh…

The PDW can do range, but not a lot of it. Ideally, it

should not be the first thing you grab if you
reasonably expect to be engaging targets at
distance. With supersonic ammo, you can hang out
to 400m or so, but that’s it, and even then only
after considerable hold and a nosedive of bullet
drop.

We keep going back to that keyword of

optimization. While the PDW can reach out some,
it’s not optimized for it. That’s not what it’s there
for.

Q: “Well, what if I just get a longer barrel to shoot

.300BLK from?”

A: It’s not going to change the trajectory

significantly enough to make it worth the weight
penalty or the expense, nor will it increase the
effective range. I don’t care what’s been
accomplished competitively, comp rifles aren’t
typically built for practical applications.

Stay focused.

The most important thing to keep in mind about

.300BLK is that it’s not a replacement for 5.56. It
was never meant to be, and it never will be. It is,
however, a shoulder-fired 9mm replacement.

The .300BLK PDW AR configuration exists within the

same size and weight bracket as traditional pistol
caliber PDWs & SMGs, but its versatility and lethality
are significantly greater

What .300BLK does do is allow you to use

subsonic ammo and a suppressor to do an MP5’s
job indoors just as quietly. You can then, with the
simplicity of a magazine change, switch to
supersonic ammo and do what no MP5 could
reasonably be expected to do past 50m (let alone
at four times that distance).

There are other advantages as well. It has the

exact same manual of arms as 5.56 AR-15s and 1:1
parts compatibility with the exception of just one
component: the barrel. That barrel ought to be
short, well shorter than 10.3″ at least.

That’s what it was made for: .300BLK shines when

it’s fired from a suppressed PDW-sized platform.

It will be a tad louder suppressed if you’re shooting

supersonic ammo instead of subsonic ammo, but
the lethality on top of the range capability you get
from that supersonic ammo crushes what a 9mm
PCC has to offer, while still suppressing and
stabilizing better than most 5.56 ammo fired from
the same barrel lengths.

At least an MP5 (a real one, I mean) has burst and

full-auto functions to provide some extra utility,
but in the commercial market at large, these are
rare. The overwhelming majority of gun owners
won’t be buying or feeding transferable full-auto
rifles or SMGs, so I’m looking at this through the
lens of what is readily, commercially accessible to
the most amount of people in the market.

It also has an added benefit for LE agencies that

use both AR/M4s and MP5s by allowing them to
streamline their logistics and armory training
needs. Instead of two wholly different sets of
parts, it’s just one. The only thing different is the
barrel; everything else is the same. That’s a
significant potential logistic and financial
advantage.

They also only need to send armorers to a single

training course (for the AR-15 platform) versus two
for that and the MP5. Whether they wanna replace
their MP5s 1:1 with .300BLK PDW-sized weapons,
or just buy new uppers to use with their existing
AR/M4 lowers will depend on how much money
they have to spend.

So if your task is:

1. Backpack/break-contact gun,
2. Home defense/executive protection, or
3. In and out, smash and grab wetwork, then

The PDW configuration is the one to consider.

You’re not trying to hit that guy way over there, but
you are giving yourself enough distance and
maneuverability to be very lethal, very close, very
quietly, and very quickly.

Back to top

Now that we’ve cleared the standard frame

configurations, we’ll step up to the large frame AR-
308 varieties.
AR-308 (AR-10) Variants
CAPABILITYOVERLAP
SASS

EFFECTIVERANGE-
SASS
CSASS CSASS
DMR
BR
DMR

BR

+MANEUVERABILITY

BattleRifle

E14.5-16*C18-20*D12-13*m14.5-16TS)12-13"S) OMAX ESTANDARDDSUPPRESSEDOMAX

Weight

SpatalMobilty SROF SpatialMobility

Handling EffectiveRange
Handing EffectiveRange

SASS

OSTANDARD OSUPPRESSED OMAX OSTANDARD @SUPPRESSED OMAX

SROF SpatialMobilly SpatialMobilty

Handing EffectiveRange Handling EffectiveRange

BLUF

BR: Lightest weight, widest maneuverability

range, harder hitting and farther reaching than
a GPR.
DMR: Mid-range maneuverability and weight,
capitalizes on ballistic capability with LPVO
CSASS: Mid-range maneuverability and
weight, capitalizes on ballistic capability with
HPVO for sniper tasking
SASS: Heaviest, least maneuverable, highest
effective range, for Sniper tasking.

Back to top

BR: Battle Rifle

Battle rifles were, once upon a time, the standard
in small arms primary weapons. They were used by
militaries across the world, and they came in
different forms, most popular among them the AR-
10, the FN FAL, the HKG3, and the M14 (and M1
Garand before it).

There were caliber variants of each, but they all

came standard in 7.62×51 NATO, otherwise known
as .308 Winchester (I know, the pressure specs are
different, you knew what I meant.)

Eventually, they were replaced by Assault Rifles,

and that’s how we ended up with myriad rifles
chambered in 5.56×45, 7.62×39, etc.

GNI

FNFAI.762×51mmNATO

SpringfieldM147.62×51mmNATO

BerettaIBM59762x51mmNATO

aroerskas3762¥51mmMATC

MS49/567554mmFrench

armainteAk0762951mmNATO

mammeBATTLERIFLESOFTHE-ENOUS

NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization 1950-1960

The Battle Rifles of old were the standard combat

rifle for decades, and were more often found in ~20″
barrel varieties.

The difference between a battle rifle and an

assault rifle is the caliber or cartridge they’re
chambered in. Battle rifles use what’s known as
full power ammo, in the .30 cal neighborhood, and
Assault Rifles use what’s referred to as
intermediate caliber ammo, which is basically
somewhere between pistol and full power rifle
calibers.

Back in their heyday, battle rifles were the

standard-issue infantry weapon, and the majority
used iron sights. The same was true for assault
rifles, which had replaced battle rifles as the main
primary small arm by the point optics as we know
them today started to become more popular and
widely used.

The FN FAL still sees regular use as a battle rifle in

both Argentina and Mexico.

Although some lesser developed countries

continued to use battle rifles (and some do even to
this day,) they didn’t really return to prominence
until the GWOT kicked up and the long distances of
Afghanistan sparked a desire for something that
had a greater ballistic and terminal effect at
distance, 5.56 ammo having not yet come along in
its development to where it is now.

M855 left a lot to be desired, in terms of

performance. With a newfound appreciation for
7.62×51 delivered from a semiautomatic weapon,
older existing designs like the SR-25, M14, G3, and
FAL saw increased development to improve their
capabilities across the spectrum, from battle rifle
applications all the way up to precision usage.

At the same time, however, new weapons like the

HK417 were developed that were built around
optimizing the delivery of 7.62×51 ammo and
capitalized on improving the design features of the
weapon altogether.

The AR-10 is still used in a battle rifle capacity today

by elements of the Brazilian Military Police.

Today, battle rifles come in all shapes and sizes,

but mainly in carbine form compared to the older
and longer varieties. They are typically paired with
the same optics as their 5.56 counterparts to keep
the added weight of the weapon down.

Shorter barrels and smaller optics for BRs are

helpful once you start adding suppressors and
lights and things like that. They carry lesser ammo
typically (with 20-25 round mags being the norm),
but the point is to increase the lethality within the
same space/area the squad would be expected to
work.

The HK G3 is still in use as a battle rifle in the modern

era, by the British SAS, in the form of the G3KA4.

That’s not to hint or suggest some stupid notion of

stopping power, where bigger bullets mean bigger
damage. But they do mean bigger holes, better
wind resistance, and increased effective range.
They also tend to fare better against barriers,
though that’s a double-edged sword when it
comes to penetration and being aware of your arc
of fire.

If we’re being honest, in the same use envelope as

a GPR, there’s not much more a BR will be able to
provide for you besides a flatter trajectory over the
same distance, and that better barrier penetration,
but at the cost of lesser and heavier ammo and in
some cases a heavier gun.

So why would someone rock a battle rifle? Besides

the stubborn nostalgia that comes with the desire
to emulate the warriors of old, basically, it’s
because you have a lot of 7.62×51 on hand, and/or
you wanna motherfunk the bad guys and give
them more reason to stay dead.

HK417: A Battle Rifle of the Modern Era, developed in

the early to mid-2000s during the GWOT and used
throughout. Seen here in the hands of German KSK in
Afghanistan.

I’m just kidding, there’s more to it than that.

One additional benefit the Battle Rifle holds over

its smaller General Purpose Rifle cousin, again
related to its ammo, is the effective range by
default. Before anyone flips out talking about how
70+ gr 5.56 ammo is just as capable just as far as
7.62×51, stop and take a minute to think about this.
Out to 600+m, the fancy 5.56 is at the tail end of
its performance envelope, and the 7.62×51 is still
thriving in its element.

But that’s beside the point.

Pretend you don’t have any of the fancy ammo.

You’re slinging ball. XM193, M855, or M80. Why?
How could you let this happen to yourself? Why
wouldn’t you have better ammo?

Maybe you did. Maybe you used it all up. Or maybe

the aforementioned varieties were the easiest to
buy cheap and stack deep. This isn’t an unfamiliar
situation now. As a matter of fact, this is what
most people do. They buy blaster ammo in bulk
and then get the premium stuff on top of that to
save for a rainy day. Well if it’s hurricane season
and you’ve got rainy day after rainy day, now
you’ve got some ballistic performance factors to
take into consideration.

Without splitting hairs, if ball ammo is the order of

the day because it’s the easiest stuff to find in
quantity, now the Battle Rifle takes the effective
range hill. There, it reliably delivers terminal
performance out to a further distance, and bucks
the wind better on the way out there.

Personal battle rifle belonging to the author; a 14.5″

barreled SR25 CC upper on an ADM lower. This is an
even more recent version of the AR-10.

The ill-fated ICSR (Interim Combat Service Rifle)

was an initiative to restore the Battle Rifle to
primary small weapon status. This was based on
the notion that the new M80A1 variant of 7.62×51
would fare positively against body armor plates
used by near-peer threats.

Although this move back to the Battle Rifle from

the Assault Rifle as the main primary infantry
weapon was killed in its crib by those that felt
carrying less (albeit heavier) ammo with increased
recoil wasn’t the right move, it speaks to the
efficacy and added capability benefit 7.62×51
carries with it. With the right variety of ammo,
Battle Rifles are certainly effective, despite their
antiquated characteristics.

They get more interesting when you further

optimize them to take advantage of the ballistic
and terminal capabilities of 7.62×51. Therefore,
assume going forward that the Battle Rifle
category is the only configuration that doesn’t
always inherently have free-floated rails for
improved accuracy, and all following categories do.

Let’s continue…

Back to top

DMR: Designated Marksman Rifle

We’ve got ground to cover here. Which, incidentally
enough, is the point of the DMR, not unlike the
SPR. I’ll start with the technical details and expand
on the role of the Designated Marksman, then get
into the nuance of the murky waters we’ve set out
to navigate in this article.

In the world of AR-308s as they exist today, the

DMR is a battle rifle with a barrel not shorter than
14.5″ or longer than 16″ and equipped with an
LPVO with a minimum magnification range of 1-6x,
though it can go up to 1-10x in the same
footprint/size of optic. The point is basically to do
the same job as the SPR in the hands of the
squad’s Designated Marksman, with a large frame
AR-308 weapon.

We have seen this in military hands at least three

times in the last two decades: Most recently, the
M110A1 HK417 paired with the Sig TANGO6 1-6x
LPVO in the SDMR configuration. Before that, the
M110K1, 2, and 3 paired with the likes of the
Leupold CQBSS 1.1-8x LPVO. Before THAT, in the
early GWOT was the aforementioned Army version
of the Recce Rifle, an SR-25K carbine with a
Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4x LPVO (the state of the art
at the time).

The M110A1 in DMR configuration in Squad

Designated Marksmen hands. Note the M110 SASS on
the left.

With the LPVO on a carbine length AR-308, you

have equipped the weapon with a tool to take
advantage of the extended-range capability of the
7.62×51 or 6.5CM round, but continue to allow you
to 1x stuff like indoor or close-range work if
needed.

The reason for this is based on doctrine, or in

layman’s terms, why you would want that
capability from your rifle.

“An SDM does not work from 300-600m. He works

from 0-600m, since he is part of the squad. That is
why the rifle is fielded with a 1-6x optic.” – Ash
Hess, re: M110A1 SDMR.

This is different from a DDM (Designated Defensive

Marksman,) who is typically stationary to provide
facility overwatch security in a static post position,
although they can also show up in a convoy or part
of a protective detail. In this context, as long as the
DDM is equipped with the capability to provide
precision fire at range greater than those equipped
with the standard-issue rifle, they’re not limited to
a “DMR” configuration.

The easy way of looking at it is like this: If the

team/squad is using RDS or Fixed 4x combat
optics, the DDM has an LPVO. If the team/squad
has LPVOs on their guns, the DDM has an HPVO.
So the DDM can be using a GPR, an SPR, a BR or
DMR, a SASS or a CSASS, it doesn’t matter as long
as he can see and shoot farther than the rest of
the gang.

But for the purposes of this article, and as far as

“SPR” & “DMR” are concerned, we’re focusing on
the individual rifle configuration and the use it’s
optimized for weighed against other configurations
of the AR platform, the names/classifications of
which don’t change depending on who’s holding
them.

Picture credit to @maneuver_____up on Instagram.

So the DMR configuration is basically the happy

medium between a BR and a SASS or CSASS
(which we’ll cover later). Its size and weight are
light enough to be wieldy and maneuverable, using
ammo that hits harder at further range, with an
optic and barrel length to capitalize on that
ballistic and terminal capability.
If we’re being honest, MOST AR-308 carbines that
are out there in private hands these days are
configured in DMR form with the presence of an
LPVO, because it makes sense to have glass on the
rifle to take as much advantage as possible of
what the rifle and the round it fires is capable of.

You, therefore, wouldn’t be wrong to notice or

point out that there’s a large degree of overlap
between the BR and DMR, which brings us back to
the question of the Recce Rifle: If everyone has a
“Recce Rifle” in the form of the GPR, do they all
have Recce Rifles, or is this the new general-
purpose configuration? Or in this case, is everyone
with a DMR configuration a Designated Marksman?

The author’s personal DMR configuration, an SR25

EMC/ECC with Nightforce ATACR 1-8x LPVO.

The answer is Yes and No.

Yes, while everyone ought to be capable of

Designated Marksman performance as a shooter
(in a perfect world), No it wouldn’t make everyone
a Designated Marksman.

There’s an argument to be made, in observation of

the degree of overlap between the BR and DMR,
for calling it a “Dual Role Carbine,” which isn’t
inaccurate but it’s also vague, and a lot of things
could be called that depending on how the dual
roles are defined, which can end up being a mess.
“Heavy General Purpose Rifle” or “Heavy Carbine”
has also been suggested, but I was never a fan of
assigning a descriptor of weight to refer to size;
they all get heavy once you start attaching things
to them. My HK416 is a heavy carbine. See where
that ends up going?

So what stops the DMR configuration from being

the GPR of AR-308s? Because we have to account
for the task that the configuration is optimized for.
In particular, barrel length plays a role here, and
that’s why we had to delineate categories.

Q: “Why is the barrel no shorter than 14.5″ or

longer than 16″ for a DMR?”

A: I can’t speak to 6.5 CM personally other than to

say while typically being fired from long barrels,
the shortest I’ve ever heard of it being done while
still retaining its precision capability is 14.5″. But if
we’re talking 7.62×51, 16″ and up is where 7.62×51
typically likes to hang out in terms of barrel length
if you’re still trying to get long-range effectiveness
out of it.

A 14.5″ barrel (14″ in the case of the SCAR MK17) is

basically pushing the limit of how short your barrel
can be while still getting an appreciable
performance at distance (roughly 600-700m,
depending on twist rate). Shorter than that, well,
now you’re no longer optimized for DMR tasking.

So, while there are 12.5″ and 13.5″ barreled

varieties of AR-308s out there (like the HK417A2
and LMT MARS-H, respectively), and they very well
can and do have LPVOs attached to them, the
14.5-16″ barreled configurations will do the job
better, as data and history will show. The M110A1
and any M110K series rifle demonstrate this clearly
when fitted with an LPVO.

Q: “What about a longer barrel like 18″ or longer?”

A: The weight and maneuverability trade-off isn’t

really worth it for what you’d expect to be doing
with the DMR configuration as described, honestly.
Those barrel lengths are best suited for a
configuration more appropriately equipped to take
advantage of the ballistic performance those
barrels provide. We’ll cover that later.

What’s in a name?
SPR vs DMR versus “Scoped Rifle”
I know this is one you guys have been waiting for
me to explain, so let’s get to it. Why do I only use
DMR and SPR to refer to the configurations
described in the respective slides, when “DMR” has
doctrinally been used to describe “The scoped rifle
the designated marksman is holding”? Because
that’s vague, but there is such a thing as
oversimplifying. Both of those are confusing, and
we’re here to clarify the matter.

I am among those that use “SPR” to describe “An

accurized AR chambered in 5.56 and optimized for
precision shooting at long range,” and only that,
because… that’s all “SPR” has ever been used to
refer to in the AR world.

That’s exactly what the Mk. 12 SPR — which

inspires so many AR builds — really is.

There is no doubt or confusion as to what kind of

rifle configuration or intended purpose thereof that
you’re referring to. Doesn’t matter who used it or
what type of unit they used it in in the military.
Everyone understands this. That was the easy part.

DMR, on the other hand, has been used to refer to

both 5.56 and 7.62×51 rifles used in the Squad
Designated Marksman role described. Hell, the
M16-based SDMR is testimony to its likeness
towards the SPR. That’s why it’s in that category,
and why the category was named after it (since it
was describing only 5.56 ARs).

But remember, this is for regular guys. Not cloners,

not dogmatic doctrine followers, or people that
really nerd out and get into the weeds otherwise.

So since DMR has been used to describe weapons

of both calibers, where else do regular guys usually
and most likely encounter the phrase “DMR”
outside of the firearms industry?
Video games.

The phrase “DMR” or “Designated Marksman Rifle”,

while historically (and vaguely) used to describe any
rifle the SDM uses, is more commonly associated in
the 2A community with rifles that fire a full power
cartridge with an increased effective range (both
terminally and ballistically) compared to intermediate
cartridge rifles, via widely consumed media such as
video games. Pictured above and below are four
examples.

LOL. Preposterous, right?

But seriously, think about it. For many, video

games are a gateway into the 2A community and
the initial perusal of what all the firearms industry
has to offer. It piques the interest of the player as
they cross the threshold into the 2A world, and at
first seek the guns they’re most familiar with: the
ones they see in the games they play.

Now think of all the first-person shooter games out

there and the most popular among them. Have you
ever seen any of them use “DMR” to refer to an
intermediate caliber weapon? No, you haven’t. The
most recent examples that come to mind are from
Halo, Call Of Duty, and Battlefield.

In Halo Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5, you have a rifle

that is straight-up referred to as DMR, and it is not
an accurized version of that game’s assault rifle
optimized for precision use. It is larger, with
heavier recoil, and likewise heavier hitting rounds,
paired with a magnified optic.

In the 2019 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare you have

a category of weapons called “Marksman Rifle”
that contains the likes of the M14. They call it the
EBR-14. This is a callback to several points over
time the M14 has been used as a DMR in military
hands.

More recently, in Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War,

the M14 returns in the Tactical Rifle category. But
do you know what it’s called in the game? “DMR
14.” How’s that for on the nose?

Finally, in Battlefield 4, there is a whole category of

weapons called “DMR” that contains the likes of
the SR-25, M14, and SCAR-H, all of which have
been used in that capacity in real life.

I know the SKS (an intermediate caliber weapon

and therefore not even a battle rifle), and other
weird stuff can be found in both the Modern
Warfare 2019 and Battlefield 4’s DMR categories,
but we can chalk that up to the game developers
being misinformed and/or using it as a catch-all
category for “guns that hit harder and farther than
the assault weapons but aren’t sniper rifles” in
general, or both.

We see that happen regularly, where for the sake

of balancing weapons, two weapons in two
different weapon categories that fire the same
bullet in real life will do two different amounts of
damage between them. This makes no sense but
isn’t relevant to our purposes here.

To the point: in either case, you have multiple

instances of 7.62×51 rifles (or the sci-fi adjacent
counterparts) being referred to and associated
with the terminology DMR or Designated
Marksman Rifle. In that particular use/role, in a
form of media that is widely consumed by regular
guys and potential newcomers to the firearms
community.

It also helps that, following this gateway into real

firearms, industrial use of the phrase DMR by
myriad manufacturers is more commonly seen
when referring to large frame 7.62×51 rifles with an
implied precision capability.

Having said this, the configuration parameters of

the DMR category here are informed by two of the
most renowned and highly regarded examples
among the initiated in our circles: the KAC SR-25
M110K1, and the HK417 M110A1 in its SDMR
configuration.

So while DMR has over time been used to describe

both 5.56 & 7.62×51 AR platform rifles on the
military side of the house, it is more commonly
colloquially associated with rifles chambered in the
larger caliber among the gun-owning public. SPR,
however, has only ever referred to a 5.56 AR.

Q: “But the term DMR has comprised everything

from a bone-stock 14.5” M4 Carbine with an ACOG
to 22” M14 variants in Sage EBR chassis systems,
right?”

A: You can start to see how doing things the

doctrine way can get confusing, but I’ll bite. Let’s
try it that way.

Hand me that DMR over there?

Which one?

Not the General Purpose Rifle, the DMR.

No, not that one, who the hell intentionally picks

up an M14 when an AR platform is on the table?

Well, which DMR do you want?

Look at all this extra communication and

narrowing down bullshit we have to do because
you want to be pedantic.

“They’re all just scoped rifles, so let’s just call them

scoped rifles.”

Yeah? Hand me that “scoped rifle” over there from

that pile of differently configured scoped rifles.

And there we go again.

See how you can complicate things one way and

oversimplify the other way?

An M110A1 DMR with an M4A1 GPR. If we pretend for

a moment that the M4A1 is an SPR, the difference in
size and caliber immediately sets the DMR apart,
removing any confusion between the two.

Therefore, I need to say three letters, you need to

know exactly which rifle and optic combination I’m
referring to just by looking at it. If I say SPR, I want
the 5.56 AR that’s obviously geared towards
precision use and is also cross-compatible with the
squad’s GPRs. If I say DMR, I want the 7.62 AR
carbine with the LPVO on top.

They both do the same job but are delineated by

caliber because you can visually and tangibly tell
the difference between them, and you already
know DMR means “the one with the bigger
magazine” based on what’s commonly associated
with the phrase anyway.

See how simple that is? Classification by analyzing

configuration weighed against intended use, with
an easily identified caliber-based delineator criteria
to tell apart two different rifles with similar
jobs/capabilities. And all you have to say is three
letters. Until there are more letters.

On to the next section.

Back to top

SASS: Semi-Automatic Sniper

System
Were I progressing from small to large, CSASS
would’ve been next on the list, but to really get a
good grasp on what that is and how/why it came
about, we have to cover SASS first since it’s the
progenitor to CSASS.

So the most important word to take note of in the

SASS acronym is the third, “Sniper.” That’s who the
SASS was primarily developed for. The Army
wanted something semi-automatic to be deployed
within the same use envelope as the older bolt
action M24 (Remington 700) rifles the snipers had
been using up to that point.

The military sought in the M110 a purpose-built rifle

that combined qualities of the two 7.62×51 sniper
rifles that came before it: the M24 (top) and MK11
Mod 0 (bottom).

The M110, originally XM110, a further developed

version of the Mk. 11 Mod. 0 configuration of the
KAC SR-25, is what was officially selected to
become the M110 SASS. This rifle set the tone or
the standard for every other comparably
configured rifle the industry would produce; they
even kept “SASS” in the name to associate their
comparable to alternative with the real deal, as
you can see in the slide.

There are minor differences, yet more similarities

among the configurations, which optimizes them
for the Sniper task and intended role/use thereof:
longer barrels, free-floated rails, high-powered
glass, and larger calibers. Thus, the configuration
category intended for such use was so named:
SASS.

It’s important to point out that the SASS

configuration is a dedicated Sniper rifle setup
because it’s NOT a “squad” weapon. Another way
to look at is like this: The fire team or squad we
spoke of previously is considered a
company/platoon level element. They are the
majority of the fighting force; more of them are
around because more of them are required.

So where your GPRs and SPRs are squad level in

terms of commonality (where BRs & DMRs are the
larger caliber alternative, and CQRs and PDWs are
meant for specialized tasking at the same level),
snipers are a battalion-level element (usually up to
three 2-man teams).

In layman’s terms, there are fewer of them to go

around, as they are a yet further specialized task,
beyond that of the Squad Designated Marksman.
Therefore, their rifle needs to be optimized for the
capability that the Sniper role calls for. This comes
with some trade-offs, as any of these
configurations do.

Although the M110 SASS is comparable in length to

the original AR-10 battle rifle, once all the
enhancements to push the rifle’s precision capability
start adding up along with signature reduction and
night vision components, the combination of
increased weight and added length takes away from
mobility and maneuverability.

With a longer, heavier rifle further weighed down

by high power optics, and sometimes CNVDs,
along with lights, lasers, and suppressors, the
configuration isn’t meant to be carried around
moving door to door and room to room. It could be
used that way, like we saw done with an M110 by
Bradley Cooper acting as Chris Kyle in the movie
American Sniper, but it’s hardly optimized for that
type of work and therefore wouldn’t be the first
choice for it.

This is why we later see a CQR (a Mk. 18 Mod. 0

CQBR, to be precise) utilized for Direct Action
purposes (being far more optimized for such use),
while the M110 is set up in a hide being used to
collect intel and provide overwatch.

Though it looks like a giant M4 or a Battle Rifle

with a big scope on it (by virtue of it being an AR
platform rifle), it’s stressed that you do not treat it
as such, but rather as a bolt action-like precision
capable rifle with a faster firing rate to more
quickly address multiple or moving targets. This
(the M110) is the rifle the Army asked for, this is the
rifle KAC delivered, this is the rifle every other
manufacturer with a likewise product compares
itself to. You could fire off controlled pairs with a
SASS, but if you do, you’re not using it for what it’s
optimized for. It’s not for that.

So now that we know the SASS isn’t a squad/stack

rifle, but it is very much a dedicated configuration
optimized for long-range precision shooting such
that a Sniper Rifle would call for, what role is it for?
What are the guys that use it actually doing with
it? In other words, for what purpose(s) would YOU,
the discerning regular guy in the commercial
market, buy, assemble, or grab a SASS
configuration for?

You’re probably picturing the stuff you’ve seen in

movies and video games that have come out in the
last twenty years: ghillie suits, sniper’s hides,
stalking, and sharpshooting from far away. But
wait, there’s more! Let’s look at what the Army and
Marines task their snipers with:

“The term Scout Sniper is only used officially by

the Marine Corps, but it does not imply a differing
mission from the U.S. Army Sniper. An Army
Sniper’s primary mission is to support combat
operations by delivering precise long-range fire on
selected targets. By this, the sniper creates
casualties among enemy troops, slows enemy
movement, frightens enemy soldiers, lowers
morale, and adds confusion to their operations.
The sniper’s secondary mission is collecting and
reporting battlefield information.” Section 1.1 FM
23-10 Sniper Training.

The Marine Corps is unique in its consolidation of

reconnaissance and sniper duties for a single
Marine. Most other conventional armed forces,
including the U.S. Army, separate the
reconnaissance soldier or scout from the sniper. In
the U.S. Army, the 19D MOS, “Cavalry Scout” is the
primary special reconnaissance and surveillance
soldier and the term “Infantry Scout” refers to
specially trained infantrymen that function in a
reconnaissance and surveillance capacity. The
term “Sniper” refers to a specially selected and
trained soldier that primarily functions as a sniper.
Most military forces believe that the separation of
reconnaissance and sniper capabilities allows for a
higher degree of specialization.

SASS around the world: The Brazilian Military Police

snipers also utilize a SASS configuration of the
modern Armalite AR-10.

So now we’ve got three additional uses we’ve

already covered before: Long-range precision
(obviously), intel gathering (recon), and overwatch
(at distance). Remember how we talked about the
effective range capability of 7.62×51 back when we
were talking about Battle Rifles? That long
accurized barrel with free-floated rail really helps
push the bullet well out to its maximum effective
range, for those moments when you’ve gotta reach
out and touch someone, well out to 1000m and
beyond when you’re using the right ammo.

That HPVO is good for collecting information from

a distance, including PID and target discrimination,
because of the higher magnification and therefore
observation capability it provides. Let’s talk more
about HPVOs for a minute.

HPVO: High Power Variable Optic

Back during the advent of the M110, scopes that
topped out at 10x magnification and started
around 3x were considered HPVOs and suitable
enough for the job. Today that’s no longer the case.
Optics technology has progressed to a point where
within the same size optic or smaller, you can have
a scope that offers up to twice the amount of
magnification. You can have more if you’re willing
to sacrifice your low-end magnification, though we
don’t usually see the 5-25x or 7-35x stuff on SASS
or CSASS rifles that often.

Case in point: the HPVO is defined as a magnified

optic with a MINIMUM max magnification of 10x (to
account for the older stuff,) but in accordance with
modern technology that’s available to purchase
RIGHT NOW, you’re looking at a top-end
magnification of 15, 18, or 20x. Because why
wouldn’t you get that for an actual working rifle
SASS configuration?

I was asked, “You define the difference between a

SASS/CSASS and a DMR as based on the use of a
‘SASS-class high power variable optic,’ however,
the ‘stock’ optic for the actual SASS (M110) was a
Leupold MK4 3.5-10x. How then does one classify
an SR25 APC with a Vortex Razor Gen. III 1-10x? Is
it a CSASS by virtue of the fact that it has a 10x
top-end IAW the SASS? Or is it a DMR because it
has a 1x bottom end? Or is it a BR because it could
be used as a ‘heavy general-purpose rifle’ covering
the LPVO range?”

A 16″ barreled AR-308 with an LPVO in the 1-

6/8/10x range? That’s a DMR configuration. So
yeah, back in the day the M110 SASS had an optic
with a 10x top-end magnification. Today…who
cares what was all the rage in 2007? Why would I
put a 1-10x LPVO on a SASS or CSASS instead of a
3-18x or 4-20x, which is that much more optimized
for what either configuration would be used for?

We’re talking about what’s available today, right

now, not what’s clone correct. The M110 is rocking
a 3.6-18x Leupold Mark 5HD nowadays anyway,
which goes to show even the Army has a higher
appreciation for capability over what’s traditionally
specified or “clone correct.” Moving right along.

The KAC SR25 APC is a solid starting point for a SASS

build.

Stock configuration is optional, though, in all

honesty, where most SASS configurations started
with or still utilize a modern form of fixed stock, it’s
becoming more common to see them equipped
with adjustable stocks. Even the M110 has
upgraded to a B5 stock on a LAW Tactical folding
stock adapter hinge, so this one’s up to you really.

Remember how I said, “If you put a suppressor on

a rifle length configuration, well… Close Quarters
probably isn’t your first job.”?

With a SASS, suppressor or not, you probably

aren’t even expecting to be doing as much walking
beyond moving between hides and overwatch
positions. Remember: the rifle configuration is
optimized for the tasks of long-distance intel
gathering, target discrimination, and precision
shooting.

It’s long and it’s heavy, so you’re giving up

maneuverability in exchange for something that’s
really good at that long-range requirement. That
said, it is not at all uncommon to see a SASS
equipped with a suppressor for stealth and
signature reduction purposes.

SASS configurations are a common sight at PRS gas

gun and other long-range competitive events like “A
Weekend at the Arena” match by Quantified
Performance, owing to their precision capability at
distance.

And, you know, more casually, you see a lot of

SASS-esque setups in the ELR/PRS sections of the
competitive crowd. Some guys like being able to
hit targets really far away, and what would you
know, the gas guns they do it with are quite SASS
adjacent in their configurations, if not exact.

Where I work, we call that a clue.

On the other hand, the CSASS is a little more

forgiving in terms of maneuverability, sliding away
from long-range precision on the scale just a
pinch.

Let us continue.

Back to top

CSASS: Compact Semi-Automatic

Sniper System
There is not really a whole lot to say here. Having
covered everything about what makes a SASS and
why, the difference between it and the CSASS is
denoted by that added letter: C, for Compact.

Same exact job as a SASS, but shorter on both

ends.

But how short? Honestly, it’s just a DMR sized rifle,

with a SASS-class HPVO optic on top. Other than
that there’s no difference. Same caliber, same
barrel length, same collapsible stock.

We get the configuration category name and

parameters by looking at the two most prevalent
examples of a CSASS rifle, the M110A1 & M110K1, so
named (or developed for such intended use). In
accordance with that intent, when the military
opened the doors to the industry to build them the
CSASS they were looking for (for which a variant of
the HK417 was selected as the M110A1,) several of
them developed 7.62×51 carbines that were
commercially referred to or associated with the
name CSASS. This further cemented the
parameters of the configuration among casual
spectators and hobbyists.

M110A1
DMR

CSASS

Both of these rifles have been called CSASS, DMR, or

both. The only thing that changed between them was
their optic, to enable tasking unique to either a
Sniper or Designated Marksman.

But until the M110A1 took the contract, the M110K1

(another version of the KAC SR-25, and a carbine
version of the M110 SASS at that) set the tone and
was what everyone thought of as the shoo-in for
the job, when the RFI for the CSASS first came
about.

This is especially since variants thereof were

already being used by SOF, well before the M110A1
came along and took the title officially.

The interesting thing here, in the case of the

M110A1 and M110K1 before it, is that they’ve BOTH
been used in CSASS and DMR configurations. We
can look and see the difference between them
depending on who’s using the rifle for what
purpose in which configuration.

In both cases, it’s the SAME rifle, with a different

optic: 1-6/8/10x LPVO on the DMR, HPVO on the
CSASS. It’s literally the only way to tell them apart.

“Herr-durr, the M110K1 + Leupold Mark 8 CQBSS 1.1-

8x LPVO was never doctrinally denoted as a DMR.”

Yeah, but when you compare that to the M110A1

SDMR configuration and the intended use thereof,
along with the other examples on the DMR slide…
it’s the same thing in terms of mechanical
capability, so let’s just go with it.

As a matter of fact, the CSASS configuration of the

M110A1 existed first, before the DMR version. When
the Army wanted a new DMR, did they just hand
the SDMs an M110A1 CSASS and say “Here ya go
buddy, get to steppin'”? No, they reconfigured the
rifle with a different optic (1-6x LPVO) cause that’s
what was optimized for the DMR’s intended use.
Nothing else changed.

In Action: MARSOC Raiders running a DMR and

CSASS in tandem during a training exercise. Both are
KAC SR25 M110K1s and complement each other in
the context of a Sniper/Spotter team.

The optic (likely accompanied by an offset or 1200

mounted MRDS) is the only difference. It doesn’t
matter if a Squad Designated Marksman never
carried an M110K1 in the infantry, the configuration
lent itself to the same purpose and manner of use
because that’s what it’s optimized for.

So… if SASS is a thing, why would somebody want

a CSASS? What’s the difference there?

Well, notionally at least, the mission/tasking is still

the same, but the trade-off of some long-range
precision capability in exchange for mobility and
maneuverability is (again, notionally) for the
following reasons.

Compared to a SASS, a CSASS configuration is,

has, or enables:

Lighter weight and smaller size for more

mobility & maneuverability in urban areas.
Increased Spotter lethality (especially where
the Sniper is using a larger caliber/”big bore”
bolt action rifle).
Less conspicuous, and therefore more closely
appears to be an M4 at a cursory glance,
making the sniper harder to differentiate or
tell apart and therefore target, from the
OPFOR perspective.
Same task & capability requirement, but in a
smaller AO (like an urban environment),
therefore not requiring as much long-range
precision capability.

So you’re doing the same job as you would with a

SASS in terms of intel gathering, observation, and
overwatch, and you still have a requirement for
precision sharpshooting at range. You’re still doing
it from hides/concealed positions and vantage
points or stalking between them. You’re just doing
it in a smaller area where your targets aren’t as far
away as they would be if they necessitated the
capability of a SASS at farther distances.

With the maneuverability of a DMR and the range

observation/PID capability of a SASS, the CSASS
configuration is a compromise suited to urban
environments. Note how the addition of the
suppressor returns a CSASS to the length of a SASS.

Same precision capability as a DMR between the

barrel, free float rail, and ammo, but the change in
optic to the same variety you’d see on a SASS
optimizes the configuration to be used for the
same tasking as a SASS, albeit from not as far
away.

That’s really all there is to it for the CSASS: its DMR

with more optic, and a different job. It’s that
simple.

That concludes the main eight configuration

classification categories of rifle types. Some of you
may be wondering about other configurations that
don’t quite fit into any of these eight as described.
They are accounted for in the ninth and final
category, the one for all the weird stuff you might
see out there, or the stuff that just isn’t as
common anymore these days in terms of
standards.

Hang tight, for jimmies shall rustle.

Back to top

UCR: Uncommon/Unusually
Configured Rifle
So, this isn’t really a configuration category as
much as an “Other” category.

This is the place for whatever doesn’t fit into the

other categories, either because it mixes and
matches parts without necessarily bringing all the
complementary capabilities along with it, or it’s
some oddball “Why would you even do that?” sort
of thing. It could just also be uncommon because
it’s obsolete and fallen out of relevance or
considerable preference compared to newer tech
that offers the same or greater capability in a
smaller package.

Dedicated hunting rifle? Small frame gun with a

weird boutique caliber that starts with a 6? HPVO
on a carbine or SBR AR-15 that won’t increase the
effective range anyway? RDS on an SPR? Barrel
length that’s suboptimal for the caliber choice? A
configuration that fell out of relevance and is no
longer the standard?

You’re in UCR territory. It’s not a bad thing, it just

doesn’t fit anywhere else.

“But the M16 isn’t uncommon!”

I know some of you are looking at the M16A4 and

C7A2 in that slide and wondering how I could have
the audacity to “other” such noteworthy
warfighting weapons. The thing you have to
remember is, this isn’t about classifying what the
military uses. This is about classifying what the
regular guy uses based on what the industry has
to offer, which is further based on what the
military uses. We do this by weighing the
configuration against the intended purpose.

Mind you, that’s where we got the title of the

article from; many an AR in private hands was put
together the way it was because it was “inspired”
by something the .mil uses.

“But the National Guard and Marines…”

Give it a rest, guys. Between the M4 & M27, the

M16 (which in the past would have been
considered a General Purpose Rifle here) is on the
outs. They’re still out there in armories, sure, but
even the .mil has been trending away from these.

So we’re looking at what’s commonly used in

circulation amongst the regular guy crowd based
on modern tech trends.

And listen, I’m being honest…I asked, and there’s

no one I could find that would prefer to choose
something like an M16A4 clone or an earlier/retro
version of the M16 configuration, or a C7A2-ish
joint. The capabilities of newer shorter
configurations like those addressed here, along
with the capability of the accurized SPR builds,
outweigh the idea of a long musket that hasn’t
been accurized.

There’s no one out there who has such a

configured rifle as their number one go-to gun if
they have a choice. There are plenty out there as
retro-themed collector pieces, but in a world full of
GPRs, SPRs, and CQRs as they exist currently, M16-
like configurations aren’t nearly a first-string pick
these days by any considerable margin among
those with options

Wildcat Pioneers, this is all you.

You guys find these weird nonstandard cartridge

options and figure out how to put them in an AR
and… that’s about as far as it goes. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8
SPC, 6ARC, .224 Valkyrie, .300 Whisper?
.264/.270/.277/.280?

I’m sure you all have your redeemable qualities,

however, you’re all weird in that “before it was
cool” hipster-y kinda way. The thing either hasn’t
hit its mainstream stride yet (or won’t ever). That’s
not a knock, it’s just uncommon or unusual.

Hunting ARs are an obvious candidate here,

they’re a fighting rifle platform that’s been watered
down for dedicated hunting use. The only reason
they’re considered here is that they’re ARs,
optimized for a non-fighting use.

There used to be weird ban-era stuff out there like

the Bushmaster XM15 carbine that you just… do
not see anyone elect to put together anymore. In
ban states, you see stuff similar to it, but it’s not a
choice as much as it’s a legal requirement or
workaround.

The terms Uncommon and Unusual both describe

some of the funky stuff I’ve seen out there — like
an M4A1 Block II with an HPVO, which is like… a
CSASS version of an SPR (CSPR?). But it’s an
oddity, all the same, considering that the effective
range and ballistic performance of the 5.56 round
out of a 14.5″ barrel aren’t very much
complemented or further enabled by the high
power glass.

I’ve seen it done, but not often. It always struck me

as an on-site combination of components to fill a
gap in a pinch based on what was available on
hand rather than a purpose-built solution. Kinda
like 16″ barreled SPR builds with high power glass
or the old Recce Rifle stuff from the early GWOT.

But again I digress.

Lol optimized configuration? What’s that? iT wOrKs

FoR mE/iT sUiTs My NeEdS. Okay, but you’re weird.

Examples of a UCR aren’t limited to the pictured

examples, that’s just all I could fit on the slide. But
you have an idea of the logic being applied here.
ARs can be made to do a lot of things; they don’t
all typically have a place. Sometimes it’s just
because/why not, sometimes it’s obsolete,
sometimes it doesn’t make sense.

That’s the nuts and bolts of the UCR category of

rifle types: no barrel length, optic, or cartridge
parameters, not really particularly optimized for
any task the configuration varieties already
address, because we have eight other categories
for that, and if it doesn’t fit in one of those…

You’ve got yourself a rifle of uncommon or unusual

configuration.

I’ve said it already, but I want to leave you with

this: a lot of these configurations can be used to
do another configuration’s job. Overlap is to be
expected, especially in capability, but the question
to ask, and ultimately the answer that separates
them, is “Is the configuration optimized for the
intended role?”

Can a GPR do an SPR’s job? Yeah, sure. But an SPR

will do it better. Can a BR do a DMR’s job? Yeah,
but not as good as a purpose-built DMR
configuration. Can a CQR be used as a PDW? Sure,
but it wouldn’t be as readily concealable and
deployable as a PDW, and there’s also ballistic
performance to take into consideration.

Those are just a few examples.

A scoped rifle can be a scoped rifle at the end of

the day. But its configuration gives us a clue as to
what role it’s optimized for, and thus how to best
utilize and therefore categorize it.

Now for the most important

thing: these things move.
They evolve with time, they aren’t set in stone. As
technology gets more capable, and smaller, and
lighter, categories will overlap so much they will
absorb into each other and become the same, and
therefore fewer in number. The more capabilities a
rifle can reliably provide in a standard generalized
form, the less need for specialized configurations
there will be. And that’s to be expected.

We’ve seen it happen over time, and we see it in

these category slides. Until we’re shooting
laser/beam/plasma rifles with digitized optics
capable of ridiculous levels of magnification based
on image rendering technology, there will never be
one bullet delivered from one rifle configuration
with one optic that can do every job. So there will
always be different configurations out there — but
the names might not always make sense. So the
approach I’ve always used to navigate them that’s
worked best is to look at how the rifle types are
configured weighed against their intended
purpose, and associate that combination with the
name most commonly associated with that form
factor.

From that, this system.

In the current era:

The GPR should summon in your mind something

akin to an M4A1 or M27.

The CQR should make you picture something like a

Mk. 18.

If I say I want to do an SPR build, you should know

that I’m talking about something like or inspired by
the Mk.12.

PDW should tell you, a weapon smaller and more

concealable than a Mk. 18 with a caliber optimized
for that size.

Battle Rifle? A lighter weight 7.62×51 fighting rifle

that packs a punch out to a greater distance, and
capitalizes on speed and maneuverability.

DMR? A Battle Rifle configured to take advantage

of its ballistic capability at distance.

SASS should tell you “A long heavy large frame AR

conducive to Sniper tasking.”

CSASS? DMR with big glass, also for a sniper

tasking.

Finally, UCR should tell you, something that

doesn’t fit into those previous categories.

In the future, who knows? Some of these

categories might go away like the way GPR
absorbed and usurped “Recce Rifle” as a unique
configuration. We may see new categories based
on new technologies and requirements. Either way,
it will be interesting to watch how things develop.

Hopefully, this will be of some use to you. Ideally, it

makes the sea of products the industry has to offer
that’s inconsistently named after military small
arms easier to navigate and the different
combinations of products easier to understand.

What you have now, I hope, is an easy-to-

remember and easy to disseminate system of
shorthand. Take it and pass it along. Next time you
have a friend wondering how they should set up
their AR, show this to them, and give them
something to think about. Maybe it will help them
get the most out of their first or next rifle.

Back to top

Clarifications
Reviewers

I’ve been an actively involved member of the 2A

community for almost 15 years at this point, and
more recently the “industry” itself. In that time I’ve
learned a lot by observing and seeking out the
highest quality information sources and met a lot
of extraordinary people in the industry. I’ve been
privileged to make many friends among them, and
with many civilian and professional end-users as
well.

While writing this I ran all of it, piece by piece, by

some of the most experienced and knowledgeable
among those friends. I wanted to make sure I
wasn’t overlooking anything, or leaving anything
out, or saying anything factually incorrect. I
wanted to make sure it made sense, and that my
logic was clear and easy to grasp. It was wholly
approved by everyone I asked to analyze and
critique it.

They know who they are, and I’d like to thank them
for their assistance.

Those who disagree with the idea

These people will think it absurd, that one would

form categories based on configurations and the
uses and names thereof that borrow from .mil
naming conventions without strictly following the
doctrine or the reasons those configurations were
developed and named so. That’s okay. One last
time for good measure: this was not written for
them and has zero bearing on the way the .mil
does things.

Back to top

Facebook Twitter
0
Shares
Email

Frank Woods

Frank Woods is a ten year veteran of Gotham City

PD1 and a devoted scholar of Hoplology. In

addition to the experience gained during his

tenure, he has amassed a considerable amount of

training time beyond what his agency provides to

its rank and file. This is as much a reflection of his

enthusiasm for learning and honing techniques

and mindset as it is a desire to enhance his ability

to serve and protect. If you're on Facebook much,

check out his discussion group, Tactics &

Applications. 1 His agency's policy and procedures

(and a desire for PERSEC) prevent the use of the

real agency and name. GMW has vetted him,

however.

Sign Up for Newsletter

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

Let us know what topics you would be

interested:
News
DIY
Reviews
Podcast
Training
New Products

Sign Up

Related Articles

Henry Homesteader:
Converting to Glock
Magwells, Cleaning, and
Dissembling

Gun Builds & How-Tos November 13, 2023

Should You Build an AR-15?

Pros and Cons.

Gun Builds & How-Tos November 7, 2023

Nordic Components NC-1

Handguard: A New Look
For Your AR-15

Gun Gun Builds November 3, 2023

Parts & How-Tos
Reviews
 Gun Bench Setup: How to
Set Up Your Workspace

Gun Cleaning & October 26, 2023

Builds Maintenance
& How-
Tos

8 Comments 
1 Login

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH

OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

 Share

Best Newest Oldest

Will Jackson − ⚑
2 years ago

I’ve been looking for an article like this ever since I

started learning about :rearms. Thanks for writing.

2 0 Reply • Share ›

Matthew Maxvill − ⚑
2 years ago

Great article! Excellent info that helps me focus on

what capabilities I can expect from some of the riDes I
have bought and built, and others I am considering
building or purchasing. I will be doing an optic and
accessory shuGe in the near future.

On a side note, how would shotguns be classi:ed?

They're not riDes and generally not small enough to be
PDWs but does the effective range allow for a CQ
classi:cation?

1 0 Reply • Share ›

Frank Woods >

… Matthew Maxvill − ⚑
2 years ago

I wrote this pertaining strictly to ARs, so shotguns

are just... shotguns, in my book. Off the top of my
head I could think to categorize them as
Hunting/Competitive, Patrol/Cruiser, and Breacher
depending on the size, but that isn't even taking the
AK/AR and bullpup looking stuff into account.

0 0 Reply • Share ›

James Turner − ⚑
J a year ago

Thanks for the insightful article. I came across it by

googling, "Where do riDes get their names?" I found
that the naming conventions vary by manufactures.
Your article cleared up the intended use of a riDe for
me. In my environment (NJ-Pray for me...lol) I have no
use for a barrel length longer than 18 inches. As you
stated in the article, most gun owners have GPR's and
that's true for me. I have one standout riDe I can
declare to be CSASS. The rest of my riDes are de:nitely
GPR's. They all work for me in my environment.(by their
optic type) Thank again for a great article.

0 0 Reply • Share ›

DD − ⚑
2 years ago edited

Q: “Well, what if I just get a longer barrel [than 10.3"] to

shoot .300BLK from?”
A: "It’s not going to change the trajectory signi:cantly
enough to make it worth the weight penalty or the
expense, nor will it increase the effective range."

AYFKM? (Are you freaking kidding me?)

You must be talking solely about subsonic ammo,
because for supersonic 300 BLK ammo, there is a huge
difference in trajectory, effective range, and energy for
300 BLK when the barrel length is increased.
For 300 BLK, here's the difference in length and
velocity for 110 grain ammo:
Length / Velocity
10" = 2173 fps and 1153 ft/lb (equivalent to the energy
of a 5.56 with a 16” barrel)
14" = 2337 fps (an increase of 164 fps over 10")
16" = 2397 fps (an increase of 224 fps over 10") and
1403 ft/lb (equivalent to the energy of a 5.56 with a 24”
see more
barrel)
20" =02491 fps (an increase of 318 fps over 10")
1 Reply Share › •
24" = 2563 fps (an increase of 390 fps over 10")
30" = 2644 fps (an increase of 471 fps over 10") ⚑
Frank Woods > DD −
2 years
I included 24" and ago
30" not because anyone is actually
going to buy a 30"-barreled riDe in 300 BLK, but just to
"With supersonic ammo, you can hang out to 400m
dispel the myth that the velocity of 300 BLK ammo
or so, but that’s it, and even then only after
somehow "maxes out" at 16 inches, when in reality it
considerable hold and a nosedive of bullet drop.
continues to increase until at least 30 inches!
Stay focused.
See ⛺ View — disq.us
The most important thing to keep in mind about
.300BLK is that it’s not a replacement for 5.56. It
was never meant to be, and it never will be. It is,
however, a shoulder-:red 9mm replacement. That’s
what it was made for: .300BLK shines when it’s :red
from a suppressed PDW-sized platform."

1 0 Reply • Share ›

Kermode Bear − ⚑
K
> DD
2 years ago

Show me the actual data from a real person

shooting 300BO from a 30" barrel cause all you're
doing in bench-racing and talking out of your
clapper.

0 1 Reply • Share ›

DD > Kermode Bear − ⚑

2 years ago

Perhaps you didn't see the last sentence of my

comment. Since you seem to have missed it, here
it is again:
"I included 24" and 30" not because anyone is
actually going to buy a 30"-barreled riDe in 300
BLK, but just to dispel the myth that the velocity of
300 BLK ammo somehow "maxes out" at 16
inches, when in reality it continues to increase
until at least 30 inches!"

0 0 Reply • Share ›

Subscribe Privacy

Do Not Sell My Data

Customer Service
My Account

Wishlist

Order Status

FAQs

Shipping Restrictions

Shipping Policy

Return Policy

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Contact Us

Information
About GunMag Warehouse

Affiliate Program

Jobs & Careers

Customer Reviews

Large Capacity Exemptions

Tax Exemption

The Mag Life Blog

Contact
Email an expert at support@gunmagwarehouse.com
or call us at 1 (800) 409-9439

  

© 2023 GunMag Warehouse. All Rights Reserved.